The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PARLIA MENT.-(YESTERDAY.) (Continued from our First Edition of yesterday.) RIBBLE NAVIGATION. Committee decided that the Standing Order had not been complied with, but under extenuating circumstances. The further notices, books of reference, &c., estimate, and contract were proved ; and it was signified, on the part of Mr. Fleet wood, that if the object were merely to deepen the bed of the river, and not divert it, he should not give any further opposi tion.—( Here a very important matter came on relative to the 9th new Order, p.lB, requiring the promoters of Bills to lodge one tenth part of the estimate in the Bank of England. In this instance, Mr. Ley, the officer of the House, had refused to open an account with the Bank of England without a Bill of indemnity, but that the money had been laid out in Exchequer bills, which were then invested in a bank for the purposes of this Bill. The Committee agreed to report accordingly ; and some very strong remarks were made against the Standing Order, which, with the refusal of Mr. Ley to concur without an indemnification, would stop every private Bill for local irnprowemelets now before Parliament. EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY. The petition was read, which stated that the Bill had been carried last Session through the Commons, but stopped in the Peers by the demise of the late King. Petitions of the Earl of Hopetoun, Mr. R. Watson,&c.,were read,stating that the former Bill was not the same as this, and that Standing Orders bad not been complied with, chiefly with regard to the contract and deposit of the tenth ; also objected, that many of the share holders are dead—some insolvent_some not possessed of their shares—and many incapable or unwilling to act. The plans were proved, and also compli ance w ith the Standing Order VII., page 24, as to the renewal of applications to Parlia ment, which directs the deposit cf the plan, &c., before the 30th of November, in the year preceding the application. In the course of this examination, it appeared that the House of Commons required that plans, &c., should be left with Clerks of the Peace, sealed ; and the House of Lords ordered that such plans should be sent by the post from such clerks to them ; the consequence of which had been, that near 4001. for postages had been paid. In the applications to owners it was admitted that Lord Selkirk could not be found before the Ist of Jan., and cer tain boatmen could not be found by the 30th of Dec., the day to which such applications were limited. The Chairman also discovered that the Duke of Hamilton was described as a " Dissenter," though the evidence viva voce was, that no answer whatever was given. Explained, that very few Scotch men give answers the moment they receive application, but generally afterwards by letter. Estimate of Beo,ooo/. by Mr. Miller, proved. On the Subscription Contract the first ob jection was taken, under the 9th and 10th Standing Orders, which required that the Subscription Contract should be entered into " subsequent to the close of the Session of Parliament, previous to that in which the application is made for leave to bring in a Bil P—whereas the English portions of these contracts were dated Ist April, 1836. 2d Objection—That those contracts did not contain " the Chris tian and surnames, description and place of abode of every signature"—whereas in some of these contracts there were no places of abode, and in many instances insufficient ones, such as " the United States of America," " Liverpool," &c., which was no definite direction. 3d Objection—That the per sons who bad signed the contracts so long ago should not now be bound by time, inasmuch as many were dead, some insolvent, &c. ; many had parted with their shares be tween the two Sessions of Parliament. The answers to these objections were, that it was evidently the intention of Parliament to relieve parties who had been defeated by them, but who had previously fulfilled all the Standing Orders ; as to the parties signing the contract, the contract itself proved that the parties were still liable, and an order of the House would not absolve them. The contract would be good in a court of law ; and if parties were altered, how could it be a "renewal ?- It was impossible that the new Standing Orders could be applied to renewed Bills, the more especially ae those Orders recognized the compliance of former Standing Orders, and as the whole must operate as an ex post facto law. It was admitted that the contract was not the same, as there were additional signatures ; but this, it was held, was additional security, the deed being the same. Last Session there were nineteen petitions against this Bill, and all the Standing Orders were fought in both Houses. The Committee ordered the room to be cleared, and after a long deliberation came to the important decision, " That tLe Standing Orders had not bees complied with, inasmuch as the subscription contract had not been entere 1 into subsequent to the close of the last Session of Parliament." A strong ap peal was made against this, and it was contended that the par ties under the contract were bound for these ten years to Come. The Climes!As said that was the very evil which the House of Commons wished to correct. It was then added that the parties considered themselves bound only by the 7th Order, page 24. It was also added that ail the new Orders had not been com plied with, as to the deposit of ten per cent., &c. (This decision, if not revc,ked by the Select Committee on Standing Orders of the House, will have a most obstructive elect upon many of the great Railways. ) MILTON NEXT SITTINGBOURNE (KENT) IM. PROVEMENT BILL. Sir EDWARD KNtercunum., Batt., in the Chair. This Bill passed through the Committee without opposition. The Report to be brought up to the House by the Chairman this evening. 'ELECTION COMMITTEES. (Continued from our First Edition of yesterday.) LONGFORD ELECTION COMMITTEE. The decision given this afternoon not to open the register, disposes of 230 of the petitioner's objections. Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE then proposed to strike of the vote of Michael Reynolds, in class No. I, on the ground that he was struck off the poll by the Committee in 1837, in respect of the same qualitic4tion for which he was at present registered. Mr. T/If.33TGER submitted that this was no objection what ever, and that as the name still remained on the register, the vote must stand on the poll, according to tho decision already come to by the Committee. Mr. Sergeant SPANKIP, argued on the other side; and Mr. Tn_ 3SICIER having replied, the room was cleared. During the deliberation of the Committee, a messenger announced that the Speaker was at prayers, and the Corn mittwe adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning, without having given any decision. The number of votes in the class now under consideration is 82 ; and we understand, that should the vote of Michael Reynolds be decided unfavourably to the petitioners, they will have very little chance of breaking down the majority of the sitting Members. ROXBURGH COMMITTEE. Examination of Mr. John Craigie, continued.—Witness threatened to close the poll. When he was one time about to adjourn the polling, the Magistrate claimed, that the right to do so had vested in them in consequence of their agree ment with the Sheriff to keep the peace of the town. At twenty minutes past three he received a communication from seven magistrates of the county, which stated that they had come to the resolution of not allowing any of the voters who were at the Tower Inn, to leave it in consequence of the riot ing; he sent that paper to the Magistrates of the town, at the same time requesting them to call upon the commander of the troops to advance nearer the town ; he was promised an an swer in a few minutes ; he waited till five o'clock, and then sent to say, that if he hal no answer be would in twenty mi nutes take such steps as he thought proper. Bailie Good fellow then came and asked him to go to the house of Mr. Walter Wilson, in order to meet Lord Minto—he went, and saw his Lordship and Admiral Elliot. Lord Minto said he was sorry to hear that the military had been brought to Denholna. The Magistrates were pre sen t, and on hearing th e o pi n i on of his Lordship, and that he (witness) was writing to the Marquis of Lothian on the subject, they gave him a written answer to the effect that nothing had occurred that day which warranted the calling , in of the military, and that they expected they would be per fectly able to keep the peace of the town with the force at their disposal. Witness said that notwithstanding all be had heard, he considered the aid of the troops necessary, and that he should write to the Marquis of Lothian for them. The Ma gistrate then said, " If the military approach the town, then we consider that we have no farther responsibility ; it is against our advice and wishes." Witness wrote to the Marquis of Lothian, giving him an account of the occurrences of the day, but before that letter could have reached his Lordship, witness received a letter from him, inquiring into the state of things. as he had received very contradictory accounts of the state of the town. The servant who brought him that letter was attacked, and witness made complaint of it to the Ma gistrates, and claimed p rotection f or him. Bailie Goodfellow, in answer, complained of the conduct of the servant in first going to the Tower Inn on coming into town, in place of waiting upon the Magistrates with his Lord ship's communication to them—he sent it from the Inn. The Bailie took him to his own house, where the answer was given him, and he bad no right to have gone back to the Inn. The witness remained in the Tower Inn all night, there was much confusion, and every pane of glass in the front was broken, the moment a light was shown, there was an immedi ate shower of stones. That Inn was the one always used by the Sheriff and the County Magistrates. Witness received a letter next morning,: from the Marquis of Lothian, which stated that he had ordered the troops to march nearer to the town. When he went to the booth on the second day, he received a notification from the electors confined in the Tower Inn and other parts, stating that they had resolved that they could put no faith in the protection promised them by the Magistrates, and notifying that they would neither go to the poll, nor pre ened home, until they had a sufficient force provided for their protection ; that document was signed' by 16 persons. Upon this he saw Lord Minto, and, by the desire of his Lord ship, he offered to the gentlemen that his Lordship would give them every protection in his power as a magistrate for the county, and that he would go up with every individual of them to the poll ; they declined the offer of his Lordship, and adhered to their former notification. About the same time seven of the electors, who bad voted the previous day, applied for protection in order to return borne. At one o'clock the Ma- - •- a letter, that he could not send the ;ness was not able to say that there had not been compelled to adjourn Id send them in as soon as the poll cord every protection to the electors 'clock, at the request of the magis -2r of protection to the parties in the Lord John Scott, they again refused the third candidate, about the close for a certificate that there had been considerable argument, v.. itness gave ;at no obstruction had been placed triting up to the booth that dap—. that was the fact ; but there was a moral obstruction, as the parties at the inn, in his opinion, were very justly afraid of coming up in consequence of the proceedings of the previous day. At four o'clock he closed the poll under a pro test from Mr. Scott's agent ; he then found the Marquis of Lothian had arrived with the troops—he was in the act of waiting for them, but at the request of the Magistrate he had stopped for a time, and at the same time he received a note from Lord Minto, strongly objecting to the introduction of the troops, as, in his opinion, it would be the most likely step to lead to disturbances, and might give rise to very serious ca lamities. The troops, however, had arrived. Witness re mained in the town all night, and everything was perfectly quiet. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant MEREWETIIEL—Does not recollect Mr. Elliott saying that all he wanted was an honest certificate of the fact ; witness's opinions with respect to the state of the town were formed on the representations that were made to him from the Tower Inn ; he had previously deter mined in his own mind, if the Magistrates did not do their duty, to call out the military in his character of Sheriff Depute, and to read the Riot Act ; Bailie Goodfellow seemed very much agitated and surprised at what had occurred, and appeared to him most anxious that the peace of the town should be pre served from interruption ; he asked witness repeatedly to look out, from where he was sitting in the booth, to see that none of the voters were obstructed, which he occa sionally did. Saw a good deal of confusion and pressing, but did not observe any of the voters obstructed. Carriages going into the inn yard would be likely to break the line of constables stationed at the booth. After the stopping of the mail in the street, to which he had before alluded, there was a vacant space from Armstrong's house to the booth, lined on each side by the crowd, through which voters could have ap proached the poll. If any passage had been cut in the railings, it would have altered the arrangements that had previously been made for the convenience of the voters. Could not tell how many of the electors whose names were appended to the re presentation which had been made to him from the Tower Inn, polled afterwards. There were several justices of the peace amongst them, any one of whom could have taken the depositions of witnesses. Both the parties appeared most anxious that the peace should be preserved, and the poll secured from interruption. Neither of them, as well as Ihe could recollect, wore any party co l our . Wh en w i tness adjourned the poll, he intended it not as an adjournment under the Act of Parliament, but merely as a temporary ad journment. Mr. Putt, the agent of Mr. Scott, and Major Potts, are distinct persons. The Major is an elector in the interest of Mr. Scott. On the second day of polling, the poll commenced at eight o'clock. There was no rioting that day. Mr. M'Connachy succeeded in polling, without the slightest obstruction being offered him. In the conversation which witness had with Lord Minto, his Lordship said, that he cou!d and would protect the voters, and that the civil force, was sufficient for this purpose. After the military were with drawn, na violence was offered to any of the electors. Recollects Admiral Elliot coming up subsequently to him, and offering his services to preserve the peace. His interference was not however required, and witness did not apply to him. Has no reason to suppose otherwise than that Lord Minto and his family were anxious to preserve the peace. Recollects Bailie Goodfellow being in the polling booth early on Friday, and telling Mr. Scott's friends to bring up the voters. To Mr. SMITH —In the conversation which witness had with Admiral Elliott, the latter said that the riots were exaggerated, and that such things were common at elections in England. To Mr. Sergeant MEREVETHER.—The feeling of the mob did not appear to be directed against any particular voters, but against Mr. Scott's supporters generally. To Mr. SMITIL—The determination which he had formed in his mind as to the course he should pursue if the magi strates did not do their duty, was suggested by the conversa tion which he had heard at Mr. Stevenson's.. An elector of the name of Davidson was next produced, and deposed that the night previous to the first day of poll ing, a party of men came to his house, broke his windows, and told him "if he voted that would be the last night he had to live." Polled, however, next day, and was attacked by the mob on leaving the booth ; his clothes were torn off him, and he re ceived some slight bruises. It being now four o'clock, it was announced that the Speaker was at prayers, and the Committee adjourned to eleven o'clock to•morrow morning. (this day.) IPSWICH COMMITTEE. It was agreed between the agents for the different parties that the Tories should abandon their objection to Mr. Dicker ton, and that the vote of Mr. Whitby (in favour of Mr. Tuffnell) should be struck off. The Tories succeeded in striking off thc vote of Mr. Webb. Mr. K,lly being now again in a majority of one, The Liberals objected to the vote of Mr. N. Cobbold, which was disallowed by the Committee. At four o'clock the Committee adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow (this day.) Marqui s of Lothian said, in t :It 4 "•• • • town, • . o th e as wits • • . ''' ~,l i •ashe 1 7 1 :;ipeniW ~..r.' +. wOuic `.• • affo ( 3 iv- , sv," "c' c .. • n• ,-, iffei a c ; it • Jr. - .i;s,, , L , j r . 1 R*:.o i:. r. 4t. . i- .. s • - • f , un a 4.4 7 4 e fli An, ,i'e.; effec *e t r t e l:, in the y voters con IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 12. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. Lord ELLENBOROUG I-I moved the second reading (as we understood) of the Common Land Enclourc Bill. Lord STRANGFORD presented petitions, signed by 3,900 persons, inhabitants and others of Coventry, praying that any system of education that might be introduced might be consistent with the tenets of the Holy Scripturc3. Lord BROUGHAM did not consider that this petition went further than the Education Bill. SLAVERY. Lord BROUGHAM stated that in redemption of the pledge he gave about a fortnight ago, that he should lose no time, after the unfortunate Canada Bill should be disposed of one way or another by their Lordships, in bringing forward that great subject on nhich he had addressed the House more than once, and on which he had presented a great many peti tions. He now gave notice that, on this day week, lie should bring before the House the whole subject of slavery and anti. slavery ; and he moved now, that the House be summoned for that day. In answer to a question put by Lord MELBOURNE, which was not audible in the Gallery, Lord BROUGHAM said he sho . uld certainly endeavour to persuade the House to agree with him in an address to the Crown on the subject of the Slave Trade ; and that he should also endeavour to prevail on their Lordshif,s to agree with him in a resolution for a legislative measure of this country for the purpose of bettering the condition of the slaves during the period that still continued unexpired of their apprenticeship. He entertained great hopes of being able to carry both the address and the resolution, and he should undoubtedly take the sense of the House on both those subjects. Upon the question of accele rating the termination of Negro Apprenticeship, as at present advised, he should not take the opinion cf the House at present upon that, though he had a vary strong opinion upon it, and though he should then take the op portunity of stating his views with reference to it. Lord ELLENBOROUGH put it to the Noble Lord, whether it would not be better to move the address and reso lution on some previous day to that on which the debate might be expected. Loiel BROUGHAM said that he should lay them both on the table on Friday. Lord STRA NGFORD hoped the address to her Majesty would include a prayer that an end might be put to trafficing in slaves on all foreign stations (as we understood) with which this country was connected. Lord BROUG HAM said that that would be the very object of his resolution. There were some papers to be pro duced from the Colonial-office, which he hoped would be pro duced in a day or two, otherwise he might possibly be under the necessity of postponing the debate until the Thursday fol lowing. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in the absence of the Noble Secretary of State for the Colonies, moved that an address might be presented to her Majesty, praying that certain returns might be ordered to be laid on the table. PRESBYTERIAN OATHS (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Presbyterian Oaths (Ire land) Bill. Lord BROUGHAM-_I hope to persuade your Lordships to throw out this Bill ; I have the strongest objection to it. Lord LANSDOWNE—If my Noble and Learned Friend means really to press his objection to the Bill— Lord BROUGHAM—I will state to your Lordships what my objection is—it is not one of detail, but of principle. My Lords, this is one of those Bills from which arose so much mischief to the law, and I am surprised that it should have come from the House of Commons. My Lords, no one will suppose that I object to extending any relief to persons of any religious persuasion. My objection to the Bill is this--that, through ignorance of the law on the part of those who patronise it, it sanctions this principle, that the law of oaths is different in different parts of the United ' Kingdom. My Lords the fact is that in England and in Scotland the law is such at this moment with regard to Presbyterians ; and here, my Lords, I must observe, that the language of the Bill is—" the people called Presbyterians;" it might just as well be said, the people called Englishmen, for the Presbyterians are as much established as the Church of England ; the Quakers are not established, and therefore they are termed " the people called Quakers ;" but the Presbyterians are up wards of two-and-a-half millions in number—they are esta blished by law, and they include several of my Noble friends opposite, the family of one of whom has been a pillar of their church for centuries past ; and when the Presbyterians go to Ireland they are as much Presby terians as they are be in England or in Scotland ; but, my Lords, this Bill gives the Presbyterians the privilege of making oath by holding up their hands, as if this was not the law of evidence at this day—as if it had not been acted upon for a century —a t if a Presbyterian had not been sworn in the Court of Queen's Bench within the last twelve months in this way—as if a man had not been convicted, capitally, at Newgate, upon the evidence of a Presbyterian, sworn in this way—as if in the year 1745 this question had not been raised at Carlisle on the trial of the rebels, by a Presbyterian refusing to take the oath in the accustomed way, and being al lowed to take it by holding up his hand, and the Judges, upon being appealed to, decided that he had a right to do so. The Irish Parliament chose to bring in a Bill in the year 1781, giving the Seceder; the right of being swore, merely by holding up the hand ; but this was no relief, it was a right which they possessed before, and instead of being an extension of their privileges, it actually abridged them, for it excluded them from being witnesses in criminal cases, unless sworn in the ordinary way ; so that if a man com mitted murder or robbery in the presence of a Seceder, he was not competent to become evidence of the fact. There never had been such ignorance exhibited as in the framing of this Act. It astonished English lawyers at the time; but what did their Lordships think of being now call, J upon to enter th,, same boat with the Irish Parliament, and to give their assent to a mea- I sure exhibiting equal ignorance and want of knowledge of the law ? He would show them how this Bill had been framed, in order that they might see in what manner Bills were passed through another place. When men professed to be lawgivers, it was not too much to expect that they should know a little of what the law was with which they meddled. Their Lordships would see that the person who sent the Bill up to this House never could have read the preamble of it. It professed to give a greater relief to Seceders than they now en joyed. It was true that the relief which it had been intended to confer upon the Dissenters had:been ineffectual, but that, as be before explained, was owing to the Act of 1781. Now the Bill, when it stated that it was expedient to extend to Seceders fur ther relief, gives them that which was no relief at all, but, on the contrary, restrained the limited privileges which they pos sessed. If ever there was a measure sent up to that House which exhibited such hopeless blundering, such total incapacity, or such ignorance, it was this preposterous and ridiculous piece of legislation. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that if be had not been interrupted by his Noble and Learned Friend, he should have adverted to the law in England and Scotland as re. spected Seceders, and to any variation which existed between it and the law in Ireland. It was undoubtedly true, as stated by his Noble and Learned Friend, that in England and Scotland Presbyterians were sworn in the way most agreeable to their own feelings; and this would have also been the case in Ireland, but for the Act of 1781. That Act took away from the Seceders of Ireland the privilege of being sworn in criminal cases, like the Presbyterians in Scotland. Now this bad given rise to very greatin convenience, and it was absolutely necessary that some Legislative measures should be resorted to, to remedy the evil. As an instance of it, he would refer to the case of Dr. Cooke, who refused to be sworn, unless in the manner of the Scotch Presbyte rians ; the effect of which was, that his evidence could not be received, and a verdict was returned totally different from what would have been found, if he had been exa mined. Here was a very great abuse to be done away with, and he was quite ready to confer with the Noble Lord as to the best means of remedying the evil, whether by repealing the Act of 1781, or proceeding with this Bill. He did not care which, provided it effected the object which they had in view ; and for this purpose was quite willing to postpone the second reading of the Bill. Lord BROUGHAM said that he should be most happy to concur with his Noble Friend in any arragement by which effectual relief could be given to the Seceders. He hoped the time was not far distant when the Noble Lord cn the Wool sack, and other Noble Lords, would make up their minds on the measure. He thought the proper course would be, to move that the Order should be discharged generally. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no objection to with draw the Order for the present. Lord BROUGHAM observed, that by adopting that course it would afford an opportunity to Lord Plunkett of be ing present, as that Noble Lord intended leaving Ireland in a few days. The Order was then discharged. REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition from Bath, praying for the reduction of the rate of postage. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 12. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. Mr. Montague appeared at the bar with the annual re turns from the Bank of England, according to the Statute. On the motion of Mr. SHEPHERD, the Warminster New Roads Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1838. SIR JOI-IN SOANE'S MUSEUM. Mr. CLAY had a petition to present on belntlf of the family of the late Sir John Soane, fur leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act passed in the year 1833, for the settlement and preservation of his Museum, in Lincoln's-inn-fields. The Bill was to have-been presented by an lion. Friend of his (Mr. Clay), who took a great interest in the measure on public grounds alone, having no connection with the family ; and who, if he had not been prevented by circumstances, would have explained to the 1101.13 e the nature and objects of the Bill applied for. The lion. Member was proceeding with further explanations, when The SPEAKER suggested that the petition should be re ferred to the Committee on Standing Orders. Mr. CLAY said that as the petition was of very peculiar interest, he wished to state to the House the circumstances out of which it arose. Mr. SCARLETT considered the Hon. Member out of ercler ; and thought that he had better act upon the sugges tion of the Speaker, and confine himself to stating the prayer of the petition. • Mr. CLAY said that the obj-et of the Bill applied for was to remove the Museum from Lincoln's Inn-fields to the British Museum ; to pr,vide for a librarian out cf the estate ; and to apply the aunt left for the support of the Museum in Lincoln's Inn-fields to the son and part of the family of the deceased, who were almost in a state of destitution. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented three petitions, praying for leave to bring in Private Mr. BARING presented a petition from the county of Cork, in favour of Vote 63 Ballot, and the total aholitior if tith( b 3 111 01 les. NI4IW POOR LAWS. Mr. FIELDEN presented thirty petitions against the Ness Poor-law, from thirty different parishes and hamlets of Nor wich and its vicinity, signed in the aggregate by 7,611 per sons. Also a petition from sixty-two inhabitants of the parish of Hunston, Sussex; also from the parish of Downington, Sussex, signed by forty-two persons; from Pagham, Sussex, signed by 210 ; from six hundred inhabitants of the City of Chichester. Also a petition from Weston. under- Penyard, Herefordshire, signed by every labourer in the parish, and by thirteen out of the fifteen farmers of the parish ; also from the parish of Linton, Herefordshire, signed by 220 persons; also from certain inhabitants of the City of Hereford, signed by 1,063 persons. From Broomside, Durham, a pe •ition signed by 384 perslns. All these came from agri cultural districts, and all prayed for a total repeal of the New Poor Law. The Hon. Member also pre sented several petitions, having the same prayer, from manufacturing districts. From a public meeting of the township of Sheriffhill, Newcastle-upon Tyne, signed by the Chairman ; from a publi c meet i ng o f the township of Lochwood, Yorkshire, signed by th e Ch a i rman; from Clay ton, in the palish of Bradford, s i gne d b y 930 p er sons ; from Hyde, Cheshire, signed by 2,819 persons; from Torege, Lan cashire, signed by 160 ; from Huddersfield, signed by 9, 564 ; from Ossett cum Gawthorp, Yorkshire, signed by 880 ; from Gawthorp, signed by 206 ; from the township of Fixby, signed by 70 ; from Luithwaite, Yorkshire, signed by 672 ; Golcar, also in Yorkshire, signed by 690. The total number of signatures to these petitions being 26,552. Sir G. STRICKLAND supported the prayer of the peti tion, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Poor-laws. and Trom NATIONAL EDUCATION. Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from Manches ter, siansd by 23,500 persons, praiing the House to ta ke into consideration the necessity that existed of establishing a na tional system of educ at i on . The Hon. Member cordially agreed with the prayer of the petition, believing that a na tional system of education was necessary. Mr. BROTHERTON supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. WYSE said that notice having given by the Hon. Member of hi s i n t ent i on to present the petition, he believed it was consistent with the regulations of the House for any Mem ber to state his opinions upon the subject. The SPEAKER sa id t h at it was for the House to deter : mii:e whether the Hon. Member should be heard or not. It was not us ua l f or H on. M embers to state their opinions on the presentation of a p e ti t i on. It the lion. Member wishe d to do so, the better course would be to give a notice to that effect. Mr. WYSE submitted to the juclirment of the Chair. Colonel G. LANGTON, highly approving of the object of the petition, gave it his cordial suppor e tition from Dund alk, t. Mr. RE DDINGTON presented a p praying fur the a b o li t i on of tithes in Ireland. Sir J. COLQ UHO UN presented a petition from Dunbar ton, against certain clauses in the Sheriffs' Courts Bill. On the motion of Sir M. WOOD, appointed to e x am i ne t h e reports made in 1830 re l a ti v e to th e improvement s i n th e Ci ty, toget h er with any plans which they might deem ne cessar y f or t h e same object, and to report to the House. a Select Comm ittee was Mr. Serjeant JACK SON presented a petition from the Officers of the Pipe Water Corporation of Dublin, praying for compensation in the event of their office being abolished by the Irish L nm er: Co i nll favour p al yN o o r up a o oE n f ayßn presented x t e n s o ofa t p h e e t i s t i o o ff n r f a r g o o n: N A, o s t h e to b n y - B un a d u c o r t: and a shortening of the duration of Parliaments. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from Led burgh, praying for a total abolition of the Negro apprentice ship in the West Indies. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. WAKLE ir said it was with very great regret that he ever spoke in the language of complaint, but unfortunately he was very often called upon to do so. He had a very strong ob jection to every thing in the shape of unfair play. He alluded to the practice of the press, as connected with that House. With regard to the press, personally, he had no complaint to make, either before he had the honour of a seat in that House, or since. On the contrary, the press had rendered him an es sential service. Without its aid he never would have obtained the situation he now held. For a long series of years he had been honoured with its abuse—(Laughter)—he was inured to its abuse, and to that abuse he owed the proud honour of a seat in that House. He had no blame to attach to it, for his own part—he had no complaint to make against it per sonally ; but on the part of the working millions of England, he had to complain in the most severe, if not in a loud manner. On Friday last he presented to the House seven or eight pe titions, on behalf of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners. H e was sorry to go into this discussion—he hoped the Speaker would betray no anxiety—it was with reluctance he adverted to it ; but he wished Honourable Members to bear in mind that if the privileges of the House were to be broken, they ought to be violated with strict impartiality. He stated again that, individually, he had no complaint to make. Ho was utterly regardless of whatever course the press might pursue with regard to him self, but he had presented to the House seven or eight pe titions, praying the House to interfere with the Crown for the mitigation of the sentence on the Glasgow Cotton-spinners. In the Morning Chronicle Newspaper there was an entire omission of every one of those petitions, although one of them contained upwards of eighteen th ousan d signatures.—( Hear, hear.) That fact of itself might be of little importance ; but what followed ? The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin presented a petition immediately after him, and that petition being from the merchants, bankers, and traders of Dublin, a description was given of its contents in 11. e MornLy Ch, uncle. 1., the Tin:es news t _o.i.e, were two lines of notice with regard to that petition— " Mr. Wakley presented several petitions to the House in favour of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners." But in the succeeding lines there was—" Mr. O'Connell presented a petition from Dublin, signed by 4,000 inhabitants, including the bankers, merchants, and traders of that place. Now he begged to ask plainly the question—was the House prepared to witness, from day to day, a violation of its privileges, and to witness at the same time an act of such injustice to be com mitted ?—( Hear.) Many Hon. Members might consider the Glasgow Cotton-spinners to be guilty ; but it ought not to be withdrawn from the public, that there were hundreds of dissentients in this kingdom who considered the sentence on those men as being far too harsh ; they took an interest in the sufferings of those unfortunate individuals, and prayed , through petitions to that House, for a mitigation of the sen tence. He did not intend to make any motion on this subject ; but he begged leave, for the information of the House and the public, to state that on Friday last he presented petitions from the Trades of Edinburgh; from the United Labourers of Edin burgh ; United Operative Masons of Scotland ; the Operative Cork Cutters ; the Inhabitants of Linwood ; and the Trades and Working Classes of Dundee. He bad only to say in conclusion, whatever might be the consequences to himself, and whatever might be the consequences to the House, that if a simil ar course o f i n j ust i ce b e p urs ued on future occasions, he should fearlessly and perseveringly exercise the privilege which he had a right to exercise in that House, and call the attention of the Speaker to the fact of there being strangers in the House, and consequently to the exclusion of strangers from it ; because it was far better, in his opinion, with reference to the proceedings of the assem bly, that those proeeedings should not be reported at all, ra ther tha n th ey s h ou ld b e re p or t e d incorrectly, and with an apparently premeditated view to create illusion and mis conception i n th e p u bli c m i n d.—( Hear, and cheering.) Having made that pledge, to which he would resolutely adhere, and from which no consideration on earth would induce him to depart, he would present the following petitions—from the operative united masons of Edinburgh—from the working classes of Leeds—from the Islington Working Men's Association—from the working classes of London, in public meeting assembled at the Mechanics' I nstitu tion, Southampton-buildings—from the Cumloch Work ing Men's Association—and from Dalkeith--all, we be lieve, in favour of a mitigation of the sentence on the Glasgow Cotton-spinners. DUBLIN TRADES' UNIONS. The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from the stucco plasterers of Dublin, which related to the character of the working men of Dublin. The petitioners denied the al legations sshich had been made against them, and they prayed for an inquiry into Trades' Unions in general, and particularly into the constitution and conduct of their own body. As the petition from those respectable persons, the merchants, bankers, &c., of Dublin was printed and circulated with the Votes, he should more that the petition which he now presented be also printed and ordered with the Vutes.— Ordered. THE COLONIAL SECRETARY. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH gave notice that on the 6th of March he would move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty from this House, to the effect that the House respectfully expressed its opinion, that in the present critical state of her Majesty's foreign possessions, it is impor tant that the Colonial Minister should be a person in whose forethought, diligence, vigilance, and skill this House and the country at large could confide, and that with all the due regard to the prerogative of the Crown, this House could not place confidence in the present Colonial Secretary.—(Great laughter.) GLASGOW COTTON-SPINNERS. Mr. LEADER presented a petition praying for an inquiry into the Glasgow Cotton-spinners' Association. NEW POOR.LAW. An HoN. MEMBER presented a petitioa for the repeal of certain clauses in the_ New Poor-law Bill. NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP. Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from some place in Sottersetshire against the system of Negro Apprenticeship in the Colonies. BALLOT. Mr. SANFORD also presented a petition from the game county in favour of the Ballot. POOR LAWS (IRELAND). An Hotl. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of Poor Laws for Ireland. Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from the North of Ire:and against the Irish Poor Law Bill, or for various amendments in the same. POOR LAWS. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON presented a petition from a parish in the county of Lancaster, against the New Poor Law Bill. If he saw any one of her Majesty's Ministers present—(Hear, hear) — Lord J. RI:isELL here entered the House, and took his seat upon the. Treasury Bench. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON was happy to see the Noble Lerd. The petition which be had just presentad, for the repeal of the Poor-law Bill, Ivas signed by a clergyman, and above 400 of the most respectable inhabitcmtsof the parish ; and he (Lord F. Egerton) believed this to be but a sample of the state of public opinion in the country relative to this Bill. The Noble Lord said, that with regard to the manner in which petitions were brought forward on other occasions, he had only to say that he was not a party to, and did not en. courage anything like disrespect or discourtesy towards the 11ous. In conclusion, he begged to repeat that he thought this petition was entitled to, and he hoped would receive, the serious attention of Ler Majesty's Ministers. Mr. PENDARVES presented a petition from St. Ives, in the county of Cornwall, praying for the reduction of the duty on post horses. THE BALLOT. Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Southampton, signed by 400 electors of that town, praying for the protection of the Ballot. LIGHTING OF THE HOUSE. Mr. WAKLEY said, that as be understood the person was in attendance with whom arrangements had been made for lighting the House with gas, and as he had been also informed by the officer that this was the time when the candles were generally lighted, he wished to know from the Speaker whether the experiment could now be tried, in order to afford Hon. Members an opportunity of contrasting the effect. The SPEAKER said that the experiment had been tried on Saturday, but that the Committee had come to no deci sion, but had referred the matter to the House itself to judge how far it was successful. He would not take it upon I.lruself to say when that second trial should be made, but he would leave the matter entirely to the House. Mr. WAKLEY said the gas tubes were above the glass, and the flame of the gas could have no effect on the atmosphere of the House.—( Hear.) That ought to be distinctly under stood. Sir F. TRENCH had been told, that although no danger was likely t o occur a b ove t h e g l ass , th ere was ver y consider able ri s k, i n ma ki ng such an exper i ment, upon t h e b eams above.—( Laughter.) Gentlemen might laugh, but it was a consideration that, in making a new House, the beams might be made of iron, and the risk thus avoided. He was told that when the experiment was made, Leach apprehension was ex cited in the mind of those who witnessed it. Mr. WAKLE Y said at that time the quantity of boat was not anticipated, and allowance was not rruclo for the excited temperature. Although he was not present on Saturday evening, he was informed that the temperature could be regu lated with the greatest possible ease. He offered no o ; he merely communicated to the House what he had been de. sired to do by the officers ; and in conformity with that re quest, he moved that the House this evening be lighted with gas. The question was put and agreed to, and the Speaker gave the necessary directions to the Sergeant ; on hearing which, several Members rather precipitately left the House. Mr. MILES presented a petition, praying for an extension of time fur the purchase of lands by the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company. The petition was referred to the Com mittee on Private Bills- SLIGO ELECTION. Mr. F. FRENCH had a petition to present, which he con sidered of some importance to the privileges of the House. It was the petition of Mr. J. P. Somers, the Member for the borough of S;igo, who stated, that at the last election John Martin and himself were the candidates, and that he was re turned by a considerable majority over the former ; that a peti tion against the return, professing to be the petition of John Golden and Robert George Tyler was presented on 27th Nov., and a day appointed for taking the petition into consideration. The petitioner stated that he was prepared to prove that the signature of Robert George Tyler, attached to the petition, wa s not in the handwriting of that person, and that he was informed and believes that the other signatures would be also D oved to be spurious upon steps inquiry in r ef. The petitioner therefore htdet. His he p ra yed the House would take such erence to the peti tionerand the m an i d to-morrow gem ! o bject was to should move that it be referre d to a S elect Committee. MED ICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL, p h r i a v v i e l e g t e h s e o f petition the printed, asthey In answer to a question from an Hon. Moon, on the Op 4tion benches, Pc)-Mr. F. FRENCH said he had not the slightest objection 0 postpone the nxt stage of the Medical Charities' Bill till tl,v;dnesday week , or Wednesday fortnight, if required. CONSTABULARY (IRELAND.) _ . took e C o lonel PE RCE VAL be gg ed to ask the Noble Lord, the Secr e tary for Ireland , w h en it was likel y that th e returns which had b een ordered by that House on the 20 th of December last, and the report s of the sub-constables of p olice to Col . Sh a w d NIORPETH would make inquiry into the cause of K eLoo n r edy, were likely to be laid on the table ? t h e delay, a nd ho p ed to be able to g ive the Hon. a n d Galla nt M e mber an ans wer in a few da y s. POOR-LAWS (IRELAND) BILL. Lord JOH N RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House upon the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. oLord CLEMENTS trusted that the House would a ll ow h i m to make a few observations upon the general prin ciple of the Bill before it went into Committee, as he was not p resent when the discussion on the second readin n. p l a ce. He wished to express his sincere thanks t o the lio Lord (the Secretary for the Home D e p ar t ment ) f or introducing the present Bill, with the main features of which he most cordially concurred. He thought that nothing could a meliorate the condition of Ireland without the state of the poorer classes was taken into most serious consideration. He rejoiced the Bill was in the hands of the Noble Lord, and ho thought that a great debt of gratitude was due from the peo ple of Ireland to that Noble Lord for the introduction of the Bill. A great part of his constituents thought the powers given to the Poor L aw Commis s i oners were too large ; be thought they o ught not to be given without some che c k or controu l.— (Hear.) He thought the Central Commission would not act wrong so much from evil design as from ignorance. Ho was af,..id that there Itc. , ,er would Le mach or any good done to the suffering poor in Ireland, without a very extensive system of out-door relief, And elan vl i t h.,, t an ca. tensive system of voluntary out-door relief. Much had been said respecting the way in which the clergy were to act with respect to this l'oor-law Bill. It had been said, and no doubt with much truth, that any system of poor-law which prohibited clergymen from interfering in their management must ultimately end in attaining great benefits.—( Hear, hear.) He felt that much which had been said by those who urged that point was unan swerable ; but he did think facility should be given to them for inducing a voluntary assessment. He must say that due praise had not been given to the Protestant and Ro man Catholic clergy for their zeal in the discharge of their duty on the principle of universal charity. The clergy had been placed in a hostile position with their fellow-country men, and they were supposed by that House to be mere politicians, but every person who knew them well knew that they were ever on the alert for the purpose of relieving those who were objects of charity. He thought the Poor-law Commissioners ought to encourage charitable people to come forward in the way he knew many did at present, to assist persons out of the workhouse ; and un less that was done, and the system was perfectly organised, he believed the Poor Law Bill would be a complete failure. As the House did not seem disposed to listen to him, he would detain it but a short time longer.—( Hear, hear, hear.) With respect to settlement, he thought there were great errors in the way in which that question was treated. He thought that without some practice of settlement there would be no effectual good under the Bill. He was intimately acquainted with the Western districts, and he was convinced that, as they were the poorest parts of Ireland, the Bill ought first to be introduced into them, in the same manner as the English Poor-Law Amendment Act had been introduced into those parishes in England in which pauperism was most prevalent. [The Noble Lord was scarcely listened to in the House, and was very imperfectly heard in the Gallery, in consequence of the noise which prevailed whilst the gas-lights outside of the inner ceiling were being lighted, according to the motion of Mr. Wakley, and on the principle of the experiment which was first made on Saturday night. To make the effect of the ex periment intelligible to those who have not witnessed it, we should explain that, in the alteration made last night, under Dr. Reid, an inner ceiling was constructed several feet below the former one—the centre being flat, and the sides (which sloped) being entirely of glass, the whole length of the House. Now, along these on the outside, between the two ceilings, and immediately above the glass sides, there are laid on each side three pipes, running the whole length, and pierced at small distances to permit jets of gas to issue. When these were lighted the effect was novel and really beautiful—the light, mellowed by passing through the ground glass, was yet almost equal to the light of day. The effect appeared to give great satisfaction to the Members.] Sir E. SUGDEN entirely agreed that Poor-laws were ne cessary for Ireland, and that any calculations which might be made were of little or no importance to the subject ; for if the Hon. Member for Dublin was correct in his views, there was a great deal more misery than the framers of the measure had anticipated. What was poverty in one situation was destitution in another—for instance, poverty in Ireland was absolute destitution in England. As he thought that Poor-laws svere necessary, he had come to the conclusion that there could be no safety for property without them. As the Bill was framed there was no limit to the ex penditure ; and on this part of the subject be wished to say a word, because he considered it to be the duty of the Legislature to guard against it.—( Hear.) He should be disposed to ascertain first what would be the operation of the Bill in a few districts ; for he defied any man yet to say how it would work. He entirely disapproved of that part of the Bill which prohibited out-door relief in every case. The Bill further proposed to put under the direction and absolute control of the Poor Law Commissioners, all the workhouses and all the charities of the country, in order that they might appro priate them and bring them in the aid of the General Poor Law Act. He for one should certainly not agree to any clause which would take from the poor of Ireland any relief to which they were entitled under any existing foundation. The Poor Law Commissioners were about to take these private charities under their controul, but he contended that if the House sanctioned such a proceeding it would be acting inconsistently with what it had done in the case of the English Poor Law Bill. —( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Let them pass their own law if they liked, but let them not take away those charitable institutions which had existed for centuries. As he read the Bill, it took away all the charitable funds of all institutions in Ireland, a proposition to which he for one would never agree. Their object was to relieve the poor, but why confine them to the workhouse ? why oblige a poor man to walk some twenty miles for the poor pittance which was there given him. He was against the law of settlement. He thought it would lead to much litigation ; that litigation would necessarily lead to great expense. He acknowledged that the law had its benefits, but in his opinion they were much overbalanced by its evils.—(Hear, hear.) He wes friendly, and always had been, to emigration, provided there was a good starting place and a good place of re ception, but he would not give a premium to emigration, which might lead away some of the most substantial and best of our peasantry. Again, under this Bill, if the money received for emigration was to be applied to the casual poor, one union might relieve another of its superabundant population. lie did not see how the Emigration Clauses were to work ; if the emigration was simultaneous it was impossible they could work. It appeared to him, there fore, that the whole case as regarded emigration, must be reconsidered, and must be differently provided for. —( Hear, hear, hear.) In all these Clauses providing money he should like to see a limit, because if he found the Poor-law Commissioners making such an order as bad been stated to night, he should not give them the extensive power asked for by this Bill, but should certainly vote against Hear. ) The Commissioners meant t o d o goo d h e had oo doubt, but they wished to do it in their own way. Upon the whole he was very much of opinion that the features of this Bill must be very much altered, or that it must be withdrawn alto gether. There were many parts of the Bill which he entirely objected to. In the first place, as it gave no right to the poor man, he should object to any liability being thrown upon him that he was not subject to by law at present. He doubted very much whether the Bill would suppress vagrancy; on the contrary he thought it would have a tendency to encou rage it. As regards.. mendicancy, he could not think that the clauses of the Bill could have a tendency to absorb that. He did not think that mendicancy could be struck at by this Bill. What did the Noble Lord mean by mendi cancy? Suppose an honest and industrious peasant was able to earn something, but not enough to support his family, was that man to be treated as and considered a mendicant? In Ireland mendicancy was occasionally resorted to by those who, although they would be considered in a state of destitu tion in this country, were not's() in comparison with the gene ral poverty. Was a man who was industrious, and who sup ported his family by his labour whenever he could ob tain employment, to be punished as a mendicant ?—Hear, hear.) It was impossible that the House would pass a law for inflicting penalties upon a man so circumstanced, for doing that which was not morally wrong. There was a clause relating to the conduct of persons towards their families, to which he begged to call the earnest attention of the House. But first he would go to the 49th clause, which referred to the liabilities of married women. It provided that a married woman should be compelled to maintain her owe children and the children of her husband. Now, was it possible that they could throw upon a married woman the burthen of maintaining her husband's children by his former wives ?—( Hear, hear.) There was another clause making it penal for any person to desert an infant under the age of seven years. This provision would go to this extent, that if any person had the casual cus tody of a child under seven years, not as a parent, but as a nurse, and deserted the child, she might be punished by imprisonment or hard labour for three months. But no nurse would desert a child if she received the money for it; and it was only when not paid for it that the desertion took place. On the whole, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said he would support the Bill—not in its details, because he should vote against several of its provisions ; but with all its imperfections he could not propose a better measure. Lord MORPETH was sure the Hon. Member would not think he was treating him with any disrespect if be did not follow him into the details into which he had gone, particularly after the opinion expressed by the House the other day in the most intelligent manner as to its wish to go into Committee. He did not understand that the Hon. Member was opposed to the leading principles of the Bill, and thought it would be most accordant with the feelings of the House to go into Committee, and endeavour to make the present such a Bill as would conduce to the welfare of Ireland. It was necessary that everything should be done to nizke the Bill as palatable as possible, and he had the more satisfaction in adopting this course as they remained without any feasible alternative of the proposition of any other measure. Sir F. BURDETT thought some of the clauses were ob jectionable, and that they could never Le carried into effect. He complained that her Majesty's Ministers had not even had the courtesy to consult any of the Members of that part of the empire who might be able to give them important and valuable suggestions. They might rest assured that the poor of Ireland never would consent to be shut up in workhouses, as proposed by the Bill. Their feelings and habits (which had been by no means consulted) were totally opposed to such a system. He thought the arguments of the lion. and Learned Member for Dublin the other night relative to the inability of the poorer class of f armers to pay rates, had remained unanswered, and appeared to him unanswerable. The Bill would never, in his opinion, pass the House of Commons. The objections to it were too numerous and too important. No one had asked the Ministers for the Present Bill—at least the people of Ireland had not petitioned for it—and upon the principlo of the pre sent measure, they never could frame a Bill consonant to the feelings of the people of Ireland. The present Bill was an attempt to put a restraint upon the people of Ireland which they never could enforce..—( Hear, hear.) He thought the effect of the Poor-law in England was not cal culated to recommend the introduction of a similar mea. sure in Ireland.—( Cheers.) He thought that the present measure was one of the wildcat and most uncalled for he had ever heard. He should therefore oppose it altogether. Mr. BARRON could not but congratulate the people of Ireland upon their obtaining a new advocate in the Hon. Baronet.—( Hear, and cheers.) It was quite in accordance with his previous conduct, and in unison with his subscription to the Spottiswoode fund. The people of Ireland received the present measure as the greetest boon, and as one of the most useful measures that had ever been discussed in or out of Parliament. The maimed, the blind, the dc crepid, and the aged would be protected by the Bill. He had attended a public meeting in Ireland, where the Bill was unanimously approved of, with only one xceetion, and it was held in the city of Waterford, where there was a society in existeaco which was founded upon the fame principle, and so far from the people haying any objection to going into workhouses, they were often obliged most reluctantly to refuse admission to more than from fifty to sixty in a week. He was afraid the speech of the Honourable Baronet was not dictated by sympathy for the poor Irish, but was called forth by the wish to stab others by opposing their measures—( Hear. ) Sir W. BR ABA ZON rose to give his utmost opposition to the Bill. He denied that the Bill would be a boon to the people of Ireland. He founded his opposition to the Bill principally as the lamentable report of the Commissioners who had been sent into unfortunate Ireland for the purpose of feeling the pulso of the people of that country.--( Hear.) He had letters and papers in his possession which showed clearly the people of Ireland viewed with alarm the introduction of such a measure. He hoped Ministers would not propose the Bill without attend ing to his suggestions. He had not intended to speak upon the Bill until he heard gentlemen on both sides of the House de scribing it es a panacea for the evils of Ireland. Mr. WALK ER, as an Irish landlord, thanked the Noble Lord for having brought in the Bill ; and he believed that every other Irish landlord would think in the same manner, if he had a similar opportunity. The Speaker then left the Chair, and the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. On Clause I being read, Mr. SHAW expressed his opinion that the English non resident Commission would not do well in Ireland. Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was proposed to have only Assistant Commissioners sitting in Ireland to execute the ac tual work, while the controul and the power to make regula tions would rest with the Board in England. If any other course were adopted, they would lose the valuable experience attained by men like Frankland Lewis and Nicholls, who had devoted their whole time to the subject for some years past. The Assistant Commissioners would have instructions to for ward all questions and claims to Somerset House, so that no difficulty or serious delay could arise in any case. In reply to queries from Sir E. KNATCHBULL and Mr. SHAW, Lord Jt RUSSELL stated that it was intended, as the Bill specified, that the Irish Poor-law Commission should only last as long as the English one. There was, however, a Corn mitt, e sitting on the subject, which would report, after due deliberation ; so that he could not at present speak positively on that subject. Mr. O'CONNELL understood the case to be as follows There was to be a Commissioner, residing in Ireland who was not to be an Irish Cemmissioner.—(Laughter.) He was to attend to the facts of the case, and do the work, but others in England, who knew nothing about it, were to have the con trol.—(Hear, hear.) This came of following up the theory of centralization, and the animus of the matter was that Eng land should over-ride Ireland. However, he was convinced that the Bill, such as it was, could not work at all, without giving the powers claimed for the Commissioners to aliens.— (Oh I) He was ready to agree with the Hon. Member wbe exclaimed at his conviction, and get rid of the provisions with the principle and the plan altogether.—(Laughter.) After a conversation in which Sir Edward Sugden, Mr. Darby, Mr. Shaw, and Mr, W. S. O'Brien, took part. Mr. GOUL BURN said that there was an especial neces sity for establishing an office, and some authority in Dublin, competent to give positive instructions and afford information without delays and references, in a country where the prin ciple of the Bill would be so new to the public. Mr. REDINGTON wished that the English Board (which must want local experience) should only form a Court of Appeal. Mr. LITTON thought the Bill could not work at all unless same local authority was appointed to adjudicate immediately on all questions, as they arose. Mr. C. BULLER thought that the best plan would be to have an entirely independent Board in Ireland. Mr. J. GR ATT A N and Mr. LUCAS supported the clause. Lord CLEMENTS thought an independent commission in Ireland would work very well if it were composed of expe rienced and impartial Englishmen. After a few words from Mr. BEAMISH and Mr. P. THOMPSON, Mr. O'CONNELL said that this Irish Bill was founded on the abuses of the English Poor Law, and quite inapplicable to Ireland; for the Irish labourers did not shrink from work. They would walk six hundred miles to get work in England. They wanted not the artificial stimulus or English screw al}' plied to them by this Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL did net believe there was such a diffe rence between human nature in Ireland and in England, where the labourer preferred receiving 10s. 6d. a-week without la bour, if he could get it. Mr. O'CONNELL did not speak of the English gene rally, but of the pauperised labourer, who preferred to live on the parish pay. There was not such a class in Ireland ; and the Bill not being applicable, would totally fail. Sir E. Sugden, Mr. Shaw, Mr. W. Roche, Mr. F. French. and Sir W. Somerville advocated the propriety of a resident Commissioner in Dublin as a general rule : his absence should be the exception. Mr. O'CONNELL moved, as an amendment, that the Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland for the time being be empowered to carry this Bill into effect. After a short discussion the Committee divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority 94 The original clause was then agreed to. . Clause 2, with verbal amendments, was agreed to, es were also clauses 3 and 4. Clauses 5 to 10, inclusive, were also agreed to. Clause 11, relative to delegating and revoking the power of the Commissioners, was agreed to with a verbal amendment. On clause 12 being put, which related to, the examination of witnesses upon oath, &c. Mr. G 0 I.ILBURN said this clause was, in principle, a de viation from the English Bill. Lord MO RPETH said it was framed with an intention to harmonize with the system of legislation at present prevailing, with reference to the taking of oaths. Mr. O'CONNELL considered it would be better that a declaration should be made in all cases connected with a 1313 of this sort. Mr. LITTON thought it was better that parties s hould be allowed to make an oath or declaration, as they thought fit.. _ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not object tot r, insertion of words allowing persons to object to take an o° provided they objected " on conscientious scruples." Sir E. S I.JG DE N thought it better to leave the law o f the land as it was on this point. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON concurred in the observation. Mr. O'CONNELL moved to leave out the words 44 up on Sir R. PEEL said that the di scuss i on upon the words " on oath" might as well have been taken on the second clause, in ,which they also occurred, as in this. He objected to the in troduction of a new principle of law in an Irish Poor Law Bill. —( Hear, bear.) After a few words from Mr. O'Connell, Lord Hewiek, and Lord Sandon, Mr. YATES approved of the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and hoped he would not with draw it. Mr. HUME considered it absurd to leave the administra tion of an oath, or the dispensing with it, to the option of any party. An HON. Mimi= said it was important that the rule which was acknowledged by law should be adopted in this case. Mr. W. ROCHE thought they were bound to follow out the principle which they themselves had laid down. Mr. MILES considered the wording of the clause defective. Mr. P. THOMSON was not prepared on this occasion by a side wind to affirm the principle that oaths generally should be abolished, at the same time that he agreed where a party had a conscientious scruple the oath should be dispensed with. Sir R. PEEL said the Right Hon. Gentleman declared that he would not establish the general principle of dispens ing with oaths by a side wind, or in an Irish Poor-law Bill; but what did he say in the very next sentence? Why, that they ought to decide that where there was an allegation of a conscientious scruple, the party should be relieved from the necessity of taking an oath. This was carrying out the principle to the fullest extent. He would not say it would be right that the Commissioners under this Act should in all cases examine on oath, but he thought it only proper that they should have the power of administering an oath whenever such a course was deemed necessary. In those instances in which the law required an oath that should be the rule, and this would, in his judgment, be the safest course which they could pursue.—( Hear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a discretionary power was reserved to the Commissioners under th• Euglisls Poor-law Act, and this clause went no farther. It was, therefore, not a new principle which they sought to establish. Mr. O'CONNELL said it seeraed to b• forgotten that they were making a new law, constituting a new tribunal, and giving powers fur the first time. As they had a clear sheet before them, it was incumbent on them to carry out to the full e%- tent the principle which they had adopted in other cases. After a short conversation, Lot d HOWICK felt bound to resist the motion of the Hon. Member for Dublin. The Committee then divided. On returning to the gallery we found the numbers to be-- For the original motion l4B For the amendment Majority Clause 12, after some discussion between Lord Mooring' and Mr. S. O'BRIEN, was agreed to. Clause 13. Mr. S. O'BRIEN objected to that portion of the clause which made refusing to attend on summonses from the Crown a misdemeanour. Mr. S HAW concurred in Mr. O'Brien's opinion. Mr. O'CONNELL approved of the clause as it stood. After one or two observations from the ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. MAULE, in support of the clause, it was agreed to. Clause 14 was agreed to. Clause 15. Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought Unions on the scale contem plated would be much too extensive, namely, on an average of 2,000 persons and 200,000 acres. A Union of that extent would include the whole county of Carlow. — Lord MORPETH said that the question of the extent of Unions had been fully discussed last year; it was then consi dered whether it would be possible to fix any limitation to the size of the Unions, and eventually decided that any limitation would inconveniently shackle the Commissioners, and that, therefore, it would be better to leave the extent to the judg ment of those gentlemen, to adapt it to the wants and circum stances of the parties to be benefited by the Union. , Captain DUND A S thought that the size of unions should cave some limits. In England the large unions had been found exceedingly inconvenient. Mr. WOULFE said it was impossible to fix on any gi•o